Re: a list of manually fine-tuned beaming exceptions?

[Trevor Daniels]

<address@hidden> wrote Saturday, March 05, 2011 11:05 PM


On Mar 5, 2011, at 17:33, Janek Warchoł 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> > 2011/3/5 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>:
> > > When I suggested investigating the automatic beaming I didn't
> > > mean messing with the code.  But there are a number of 
> > > parameters
> > > in the #'details property of beam which might be worth 
> > > exploring.
> >
> > Thanks for information! Yes, this should be investigated.
> > However, i'm afraid that when i change some well-established
> > parameters, it may cause unwanted side-effects in other beams. 
> > And the
> > worst part is that i have no means to check this: it would 
> > require a
> > gigantic proof-sheet consisting of thousands of different beams 
> > to
> > check that some parameter combination works optimal.
> > That's why i suggested a temporary solution. It could also serve 
> > as a
> > reference beaming database later.
>
> Having recently OD'd on beam quanting, I am convinced that the 
> right
> cocktails of penalties and demerits can hit all of the targets 
> that would
> potentially be on this list. There's nothing wrong with keeping a 
> list like
> this in the form of a regtest with lots of beams (I think it's a 
> great idea!),

Excellent idea!

> but I think the goal should be to modify the quanting such that it 
> attains
> the result you want while not breaking other regtests. I know this 
> is a tall
> order and means more work, but it seems like a better use of 
> contributor
> time and a more sustainable solution.

> ~Mike
Trevor